Monday, November 02, 2009

It Will Have To Do.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Like him or not, and no matter the apprehended fraud committed on his behalf during the recent elections, Afghan president Hamid Karzai is obviously and clearly "the legitimate leader of the country," say the Americans. Like it or not, this is correct.

Karzai's closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, may well end up a key figure in Karzai's new administration in Kabul. Then again, he may not. Either way, in Abdullah, Afghanistan now has a credible, de facto leader of the official opposition, and he is a canny fellow: "The future of Afghanistan will be either a moderate, Islamic country based on democratic principles" or a "Taliban-type, al-Qaida-type" regime, which will reverse the course of progress.

And that is a very true thing. Sometimes, you just have to choose sides and bloody well get on with it, and the civilized world has chosen sides. In the words of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon: "We will not be deterred. We cannot be deterred. We must not be deterred, and the work of the United Nations will continue."

11 Comments:

It is still a set back. There is now a genuine question over the legitimacy of the government and that will feed the arguments of those who want to see disengagement.

We have just seen rightful challenges to the legitimacy of elections in Iran and Zimbabwe, so to simply accept the mess, however necessary it is to do so, smacks of double standards.

The struggle to support the Afghan people against the Taliban has always been more than a military campaign. It is a war against poverty, for development and now must be for an honest polity as well. Another front has opened.

Sadly, I can see many leftists gleefully drawing the wrong conclusions and, rather than supporting Afghans' democratic aspirations, seeing recent events as a boost to their discourse about 'unwinnability' and as an argument for withdrawal.

Your nation's first day as a democracy is not the day you vote for someone who becomes President - it's the first time you vote and someone leaves office peacefully, without having to be told twice. I had been hoping that that day was coming soon in Afghanistan - it seems they'll have to wait a little longer.

No. No great leap forward, certainly, but those who "want to see disengagement" will grab at anything to justify themselves.

Leaving Zimbabwe aside - let's, shall we? - there is no "double standard" involved in resigning oneself to the outcome in Afghanistan and dismissing the legitimacy of the Iranian "election." There is no comparison to be drawn.

In Iran, the ayatollahs decide who can run and who cannot; they set aside a wholly circumscribed jurisdiction for the "winner" in their presidential campaigns, the opposition is outlawed, a minor spectrum of opposition is tolerated, vote results are not subjected to public scrutiny, and so on.

Afghanistan is an embryonic democracy. This was the first Afghan-run show, carried off in the most desperate and violence-plagued conditions. Even so, the election had a range of candidates, not a few of which are more qualified and inspiring than any British or Canadian political leader I can think of (Ashraf Ghani, for one). The candidates fought on real, contentious and bread-and-butter issues.

The election machinery sputtered and belched and in many areas of the country, broke down. Still, the Electoral Complaints Commission, partly appointed by the United Nations, scrutinized the tallies and undertook its work in a transparent, credible and remarkably brave way. Thus, the recount. Thus, the runoff.

You are right, dear Gadgie, this is not a good day. But it is not so bad. As Grant Kippen (chair of the ECC) has observed, it may take several electoral cycles before Afghans get the hang of it in a way that works for everyone.

You are right the events are not analogous and that the results were well and openly scrutinised. The problem is that the scrutiny found widespread fraud and ordered a run-off that has now been cancelled, ostensibly because there was no guarantee that the fraud would not take place again. Thus a fraudulent result stands. Not a great day for democracy, but not a total defeat.

This is the point I was really trying to make. It is made better by the historian Mark Mazower in his general history of Europe in the 20th Century, Dark Continent. He stresses that democracy did not have solid roots in Europe and the potential for a relapse into authoritarianism was always there, something that happened in the 1920s and 30s. This was partly because of democrats failure to deal with social crises. He writes:

Though we may like to think democracy's victory in the Cold War proves its deep roots in Europe's soil, history shows us otherwise ... In its focus on constitutional rights and its neglect of social responsibilities, it often seemed more fitted to the 19th than the 20th Century.

A democratic polity requires a democratic society, one built on prosperity and social equality as much as openness and free political choice. It also requires the defeat of anti-democratic forces. On the extreme wing we have the brutal fascistic Taliban needing to be crushed, yet we should also be aware of the gently corrosive effects of systemic elite corruption that also pose a long-term threat to a democracy embedded in shallow soil.

Thus we have a war on several fronts. The military defeat of the hated Taliban is essential, but so is the social and economic development of society, and the strengthening of democratic institutions.

In an embryonic democracy, its successful progression to adulthood is more than simply waiting for practice to make perfect, it is about strengthening civil society against those who may also learn and refine the practices of profitable corruption compared to the somewhat incompetent fraud that was exercised, especially when they have just learn that they can get away with it. Thus I am concerned about a too easy acceptance of Karzai's re-election, especially in the light of the continuing UK press consensus of the need for a sell out - sorry, negotiated settlement giving power to moderate Taliban, warlords and kleptocrats, whilst saying 'bugger off and suffer' to the people.

The photo: Afghan police trainees. They're obviously Hazaras.I believe it was from either an Afghan government, ISAF or Canadian military or CIDA site.

Comrade the Plump:

"Thus a fraudulent result stands." Well, no. The result that stands is the result that was determined after the fraudulent votes were estimated and deducted from the initial and bogus IEC tally. This still left Karzai with 49 point something percent, and Abdullah way behind.

It is a peculiarity of the Afghan system that a 50 per cent vote threshold is required to hold office. The runoff did not occur only because the second contender dropped out, and given the terrors a second round posed, this may not be altogether a bad thing in itself.

A British or Canadian requirement of 50 per cent would mean maybe a handful of Canadian MPs would rightfully hold their seats, and if I'm not mistaken, not a single British MP won with a majority of constituents' votes.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I know of no analysis or conjecture that puts Karzai's vote below (or even close to) Abdullah's, and there were other strong candidates, too (Bashardosht, Ghani, etc.) Karzai left them all in the dust.

All else you say is an important insight, especially the observation that democracy needs good soil in which to root, and it's terribly fragile even then, and also: "Thus we have a war on several fronts."

I don't know that I've ever even referred to the "war" in Afghanistan, come to think of it, partly because it isn't a war in any conventional sense of the term at all. It is certainly fair to say it is "war on several fronts," because it is a liberation struggle, a people's war, a sort of class war, and a war against slavery and misogyny and obscurantism, as you observe.

As for the electoral fraud, that "they have just learn that they can get away with it" I don't think is quite right. You could also make the case that there are not a few Afghans of the Tammany Hall school who have learned from this experience that electoral fraud is actually not something you can get away with, that you will be caught in the attempt, and the whole world will be watching your every move.

"I am concerned about a too easy acceptance of Karzai's re-election, especially in the light of the continuing UK press consensus of the need for a sell out - sorry, negotiated settlement giving power to moderate Taliban, warlords and kleptocrats, whilst saying 'bugger off and suffer' to the people."

This is my concern, too. What you describe is also more or less the Canadian consensus, and most worrying, it is a significant school of thought in Amerikay, and there is little in the way of a progressive, popular commitment to the Afghan people and their struggle that should be expected to apply the brakes to a sellout.

How I wish it had been a clear and unambiguous win for an Afghan candidate that convincingly promised the same sort of hope and change that we associate with Obama's victory. But that was not to be.

So, there is little for Afghanistan's friends abroad to do but pick themselves up, dust themselves off, spit on their hands and get back to work.

It is a peculiarity of the Afghan system that a 50 per cent vote threshold is required to hold office... A British or Canadian requirement of 50 per cent would mean maybe a handful of Canadian MPs would rightfully hold their seats, and if I'm not mistaken, not a single British MP won with a majority of constituents' votes.

That is the difference between a Parliamentary and a Presidential system. So, for example, the 50% threshold is required in France for presidential elections. Most Parliamentary systems (i.e. Ireland) use a variant of PR except us.

Being a pedant I had to look it up, in 2005 34% of UK MPs were elected with more than 50% of the constituency vote, leaving 66% elected on a minority vote. The main point is that no government since the War has had more than 50% of the votes. The nearest a party came to that was the Labour Party in 1951 with around 49% but they lost to the Tories who had fewer votes! With our current high levels of abstentionism that has meant that recent governments were elected by around 25% of the electorate. Whoever wins, I don't think anyone will win the next election, the lack of enthusiasm is palpable.